hurr durr

Have you ever come across anyone who has anyone ever used their own ignorance as an argument?
The great thing about an argument like that is, you can't call them out on it without looking/sounding immature.
This is kind of like arguing with someone who refuses to follow a basic logical flow. You're not losing, but you're definitely not winning either.

Allow me to elaborate:
So I was on Reddit today because I'm a hk like that. Stare that HSC shit down.
And then I saw a post about some guy not understanding /r/guitar. I have never visited that subreddit before but whatever.
So one of the comments goes along the lines of
"So if you post a $1k+ guitar, they will love you and upvote you forever, but if you post a Squier, they will downvote you to oblivion. And there isn't really that much of a difference between a Squier and a American Strat."
Terminology - Squier is an entry level guitar, costs like $200-300. American Strat is mid-upper range for about $1.4k

To put into context, I also do not see the point for me to spend $300 on sick moulded IEM earphones, when 60-something bucks can buy a decent pair of Sennheisers. Nor do I really see the difference within a range of tennis racquets, for example.

But that doesn't mean that there is no difference between the products. Just because I'm not interested enough in the field to perceive the difference, doesn't mean the difference isn't there. There is some cognitive bias where people tend to assume their perception of the world is everyone else's perceptions of the world. And hence what they need is also what others need. Forgot the name, but that's what's happening here.

This also happened with my LifeProof case. For some reason it was extremely difficult for some to understand why I would sacrifice aesthetics, in order to increase functionality. I mean sure, most people wouldn't need waterproofing, but does that mean nobody needs waterproofing?!

Back to the reddit dude. It's not like you can say "You can't tell because you suck" because then you'd come across as a 12yo. Some guy explained it really nicely, something like "The $1000 difference between the Squier and the Strat is definitely noticeable, and worth every dollar, but if you buy the Strat you have to be justified in appreciating that $1000 difference for you to be taken seriously".

Something I disapprove of, though, is paying for $300 pairs of shoes because they are shiny. What the fuck is that. Actually, anything that is extra money purely for aesthetics, I find superfluous. But then again, I guess if they feel justified for spending that extra $x, then they ARE justified in spending that extra $x.